Track & Field and Athletics: #1 Sports site with latest training info for coaches and self-coached athletesBack to Coachr.org's homepage
or use the search tool on the right

Custom Search

The
Grace And Disgrace OF Race Walking

FROM:
TRACK COACH, FALL 2000, #153

(OK,
now that you've read Ron Laird's outline of proper race walk technique
and judging, here's one observer's view of modern officiating and rules
interpretation. Dr. Osterhoudt explains why the sport of race walking is in
jeopardy and how the rules need to be attended to make the sport a level
playing field for the athletes and one that can be consistently and fairly
judged.)

By:
Robert G. Osterhoudt, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Sport

Studies, Arizona State
University

Few
modern athletic endeavors of rank have been more widely maligned or less deeply
appreciated than

race walking. Much of the long-standing dissatisfaction with
the sport has issued from the ambiguity of its

definition and from the
consequent difficulty with which it is impartially judged. The troubled history
of race

walking is run through with many lamentable incidents in both of these
two main respects. Race walking has a long and
a storied, if a tenuous, place in the annals of track and field athletics. It

developed out of the English practice of pedestrianism in the late l6th and
early l7th centuries. This practice

entailed "ambulating" imposingly long
distances (most often from a place to another) either more rapidly than

others
or inside a stipulated time period.

The
conditions under which such competitions were conducted were almost entirely
unstandardized,

however. No definition of the "means of progression" was so much
as seriously attempted, let alone widely

agreed to. The distinction between
walking and running was masked in a way that greatly obscured the athletic

significance of pedestrian achievements and in the end significantly discredited
them. As the pedestrian urge

grew progressively less credible in the late 19th
and early 2Oth centuries, it fell into increasing public disfavor

and was
replaced by the modern, regulated era of race
walking. The ambiguities in the international
characterization of race walking and thus the erratic judging of race

walking
events nonetheless continued; so too did the numerous and highly regrettable
disputes that brought

race walking routinely to the edge of expulsion from the
international athletic community. Until 1928,
only indefinite characterizations, such as "fair heel and toe," distinguished
the race walking

stride from the running. At the Congress Meeting of the
International Amateur Athletic Federation in

Amsterdam in that year, an
international definition of race walking was adopted. This definition canonized
the

"continuous ground contact" and the "knee lock-out" provisions that have
marked race walking from that time

to ours. The
controversies associated with earlier irregularities diminished significantly
after the 1928 ruling.

Nevertheless, owing principally to the perceived in
authenticity of sprint walks (and the dubious style of many

accomplished sprint
walkers), the place of race walking in major international meetings, in the
world record

register, and in women's track and field has continued on an
unsteady course. From at least the early 1970s,
perhaps slightly earlier, a notably more relaxed interpretation of what

constitutes fair walking had been developing, an interpretation having
principally to do with "lifting" (the

tendency to break continuous ground
contact). By the early 1990s, the distinction between walking and running

had
become profoundly problematic. Late and seemingly arbitrary disqualifications
and non-disqualifications,

often involving the best athletes, became more
frequent and more unsettling. Race walking was again, and

quite rightly, under
siege. The I.A.A.F. responded in the mid-1990s
with a modification of the "knee lock-out" rule, a modification

requiring
"lock-out" at contact with the walking surface as distinct from requiring it
later in the stride (i.e., at

mid-stride, the requisite case in the old rule).
I want to argue that this modification has been a very great

mistake.Although I have not witnessed
first-hand all of the major international events of the past approximate

half-century,1 I have looked carefully at videotapes and/or photographs of all
of them, particularly the most

recent several. In the summer of 1998, I had the
privilege of attending the European Track and Field

Championships in Budapest
and came away with many memorable impressions, none more vivid, nor more

disquieting, than of the walks.2 The leading figures in the Budapest walks made
uniformly splendid athletic

performances:

Annarita Sidoti of Italy, who had
won the 1990 European and the 1997 World 10km titles, was the women' s 10km
champion;

Ilya Markov of Russia, who had come second in the 1996 Olympic
20km and would win the 1999 World 20km title, was the men's 20km
champion;

Robert Korzeniowski of Poland, who had won the
1996 Olympic and 1997 World 50km titles, was the men's 50km champion;

Valentin Kononen of
Finland, who had won the 1995 World 50km title, was the silver medallist in the
50km; and

the Russian veteran, Andrei Plotnikov, was the bronze
medallist in
the 50km.

They, like virtually all other
participants in these events, however, were also
running. If by walking, as

distinct from
running, is meant that form of human locomotion in which, for one, continuous
ground contact is maintained, and, for a second, the support leg is "locked
out," or fully extended (at the knee), at ground contact, these good folk and
great athletes were not walking. They were all "locking out" well enough at
contact but they were all "lifting" too and "lifting" very noticeably
throughout. They achieved "lock-out" at contact by releasing the support
leg-foot in the rear of the stride before the non-support leg-foot in the front
of the stride reached the walking surface, then dropping out of non-support onto
the forward leg foot. Under the terms of the new rule, there is no other
plausible way to walk as fast as most leading performers now
do. The relation between "locking out" at
contact and "lifting" ought not be too casually passed over for there is

a
telling connection between the two. This connection is a function of the new
rule (and its implemented

practice) governing the walks. The new rule
dramatically increases, not significantly decreases, the prospect

of "lifting"
for two main and related reasons:

the retarding effect under the new rule is
significantly greater than under the old one because the horizontal distance
between the center of mass and the point of ground contact, at contact, is
greater under the new rule than it was under the old one; because the angle of
the leg to the supporting surface, at contact, is more acute under the new rule
than under the old one; and because the position of the leg, at contact, is less
inclined to ready horizontal movement toward the center of mass under the new
rule than under the old one.

the hips are not settled, but raised, by the
"hard" lever required of the contact leg, at contact, by the new rule as
distinct from the "soft" lever allowed by the old
rule.

In order to accommodate the tendency to
rise at contact under the new rule, there has been a further

relaxation of what
counts as "lifting." This relaxation is based explicitly in the capacity of
unaided, human visual

perception, as distinct from based in visual-enhancement
methods or devices. There are at least three
important things to say of all of this. For one, the principal problem with the
old rule

about "lifting" was that it was not being enforced or that it was being
unevenly enforced. The principal problem

wasn't that it required redefinition
(or reinterpretation), let alone a redefinition that aggravates, not relieves,
the

tendency to "lift." For a second, the
visual perception of the judges in Budapest-and that of those in Goteburg,
Atlanta,

Athens, and Seville, as well-were not ostensibly up to normal human
standards. It could be clearly and distinctly

seen, even by those of us who are
not experienced international race walk judges, that most of the walkers

were
significantly "ungrounded" for most of the distances they were walking.
Television cameras routinely

confirmed the unofficial and embarrassing judgment
in this respect. And, for a third, although the
new rule deals adequately with the matter of "creeping" (the practice of

maintaining continuous ground con- tact but failing to "lock out" at any time in
the support leg-a practice with

the approximate stride mechanics of running but
without a non-support phase), so too did the old one and

without the attendant
"lifting" tendencies of the new rule at
that. Outside the leading groups in Budapest,
the fate of two athletes in the 50km begs further mention. Both

were
disqualified, one justifiably by the standard of the old or of the new
rule, and one altogether unjustifiably

by either standard. Thierry Toutain of
France, the former world record holder at 2 hours and 30km (both in

1991) and
the current world record holder at 50km (in 1996), both "lifts" and fails to
"lock out" in either the old

or the new sense. His performance in Budapest may
call the validity of his world records into serious
question. Jesus Garcia of Spain, the
World 50km champion in 1993 and the Lugano Cup 50km champion in 1997,

conversely, was the best true walker in the field; the only athlete in the field
who "lifted" at no time through- out

his unjustly brief race. He was remindful
in this respect of the impeccable Harold Whitlock,3 the peerless

Vladimir
Golubnichiy,4 and the incomparable Jose Marin,5 all of whom were unimpeachably
fair stylists under

the old rule. Garcia' s great sin was that he did not
apparently "lock out" soon enough by the new standard

although "lock out" he
certainly did - and more impressively than any of the others no
less. Anyone who could detect Garcia's "soft
knees" at contact and couldn't detect the levitations of virtually

everyone
else in the field was operating in a different perceptual dimension than the
rest of the species. The

arbitrary and capricious impression left by the
Garcia case in particular raises the most fundamental concerns about the
sporting status of race walking. Throughout
its modern history, race walking has been among the least prized forms of
sporting activity.

Early on, it was rightly accused of not having developed a
uniform stride pattern which characteristically

distinguished it, in mechanical
terms, from running. The "continuous ground contact" rule brought a happy end

to
"lifting" and the "knee lock-out" rule put an equally auspicious end to
"creeping." Somewhat later, it was

rightly accused of an increasingly cavalier
interpretation of "lifting." Its governing body
responded with a rule that has significantly deepened the problem of "lifting,"
has

exacerbated the impression left by race
walking itself as spurious, and has
effectively ruined the sport for

large
numbers of masters athletes who are
unable to "lock out" at ground contact. In any case, it is not at all

clear in
what sense "locking out" at ground contact (as distinct from "locking out" at
mid-stride) creates a more

problems
associated with "lifting"-the alleged reasons for modifying the old rule in the
first instance. I conclude from this that
the new rule governing race walking has brought further misfortune to it and
should

be abolished. The old rule should be reinstated and it should be
scrupulously enforced, even by mechanical,

electronic, or photographic means6
if it is not possible to engage judges who are able and willing to detect the

most egregious instances of "breaking
contact." The choices here are not unlimited.
Race walking has a highly consequential athletic tradition and is as

demanding
and as compelling as any form of sporting pursuit, possessing all that is
inherent in sport at its

best. Well defined and evenly officiated, it has a
fully deserving place among the standard events on the

modern international
track and field program. In its current form, however, the sport is a fraud and
may well go

the way of other frauds if it is not put
right.

NOTES

1.
I have, in this time, attended only the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal, the 1983
World Championships in

Helsinki, the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, and the
1998 European Championships in Budapest.

2. I want nothing that is said here
to reflect unfavorably on the Budapest meeting. It was the finest track and
field competition I have attended or could hope plausibly ever to attend. Its
organization was exemplary; its vital spirit and its keen sense of rich
tradition, entirely compelling; its athleticism, colossal; and its aesthetic

temperament, unconditionally pleasing. Nor do I intend to condemn the awesome
athletes who performed so

courageously and skillfully in the Budapest walks.
They did nothing other than adhere to the rules of race

walking and succeed in
their context as best they could. Nor is it my aim to denounce the judges of the

Budapest events; they have been handed a highly ambiguous and implausible task.
The commentary I wish to

make here concerns the
unfortunate state of the walks
owing to the errant rules that now govern them and

owing to the formal execution
of those rules.

3. Whitlock of Great Britain established a world 30
miles record in 1935 and was the 50km Olympic champion in 1936 and the 50km
European champion in 1938.

4. Golubnichiy of the Soviet Union,
arguably
the most remarkable and accomplished athlete in the entire history of the
walks, made two world 20km records (in 1955 and 1958), was the 1960 and 1968
Olympic 20km champion and the 1974 European 20km champion, and the only walker
to win gold, silver, and bronze medals in both the Olympic Games and the
European Championships.

5. Marin of Spain, who was routinely near the top in
all major 20km and 50km international events he contested from 1978 to 1992 and
who was often defeated by athletes of doubtful style, established world 2
hours and 30km records in 1979, won the European 20km title in 1982, and was
also the Lugano Cup 20km champion in 1983 and 1985.